IEEE 802.16 access technology + IPv6 deployment

Hi, Folks, 

I think v6ops is also interested in the draft -
Scenarios and Considerations of IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shin-ipv6-ieee802.16-01.txt 

(The draft will be discussed in 16ng BoF (Tue.) at Vancouver.)

IEEE 802.16 + IPv6 will be deployed as one of ISP 
Broadband Access Networks such as Cable/HFC, BB Ethernet, 
xDSL, WLAN, etc.

So, I think IEEE 802.16 access technology should be also 
added for completeness into 
<draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt>

Any thoughts ? 

Thanks, 
Myung-Ki,

draft-ietf-v6ops-vlan-usage-00.txt

David:

It is my opinion that
          http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-vlan- 
usage-00.txt
   "Use of VLANs for IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence in Enterprise Networks",  
Tim Chown,
   13-Jul-05

is ready for action by the IESG. The expected status of this document  
is INFORMATIONAL. My notes are attached.

IPv6 Operations                                                 T. Chown
Internet-Draft                                 University of Southampton
Expires: January 12, 2006                                  July 11, 2005

     Use of VLANs for IPv4-IPv6 Coexistence in Enterprise Networks
                     draft-ietf-v6ops-vlan-usage-00

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering

draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-03.txt

David:

It is my opinion that
          http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops- 
onlinkassumption-03.txt
   "IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful",  
Sebastien
   Roy, 9-May-05

is ready for action by the IESG. The expected status of this document  
is INFORMATIONAL. My notes are attached.

Network Working Group                                             S. Roy
Internet-Draft                                    Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Expires: October 3, 2005                                       A. Durand
                                                     Comcast Corporation
                                                                J. Paugh
                                                              April 2005

     IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption Considered Harmful
                draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-03.txt

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-03.txt

David:

It is my opinion that

   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to- 
exprmntl-03.txt
   "Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Experimental", Cedric Aoun, Elwyn Davies,
   21-Oct-05

is ready for action by the IESG. The expected status of this document  
is INFORMATIONAL; the expected resulting status of RFC 2766 is  
EXPERIMENTAL. My notes are attached.

v6ops Working Group                                              C. Aoun
Internet-Draft                                            ZTE/ENST Paris
Updates: 2766 (if approved)                                    E. Davies
Expires: April 23, 2006                                       Consultant
                                                        October 20, 2005


                 Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Experimental
                 draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-03

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes

agenda for ietf64 ?

Do we have an agenda for IETF64?   The meeting is supposed to be 
tomorrow.

v6ops agenda for ietf64?

Will there be an agenda sent to the list prior to the meeting?

Florent

Re: IEEE 802.16 access technology + IPv6 deployment

Hi,

draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt has been under 
development for a while and has already been Last Called. It is too 
late to add new material like this to it.  I'd suggest that you write 
a separate document (maybe re-using the document layout) on 802.16 and 
we'll push that forward separately.

However, maybe a better venue for that document would be the 
16NG BOF as that's the place for those w/ expertise and interest in 
802.16.

On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Myung-Ki Shin wrote:
> I think v6ops is also interested in the draft -
> Scenarios and Considerations of IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shin-ipv6-ieee802.16-01.txt
>
> (The draft will be discussed in 16ng BoF (Tue.) at Vancouver.)
>
> IEEE 802.16 + IPv6 will be deployed as one of ISP
> Broadband Access Networks such as Cable/HFC, BB Ethernet,
> xDSL, WLAN, etc.
>
> So, I think IEEE 802.16 access technology should be also
> added for completeness into
> <draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt>
>
> Any thoughts ?
>
> Thanks,

Re: IEEE 802.16 access technology + IPv6 deployment

This is actually something we probably want to discuss breifly  
tomorrow. I'm told that DOCSIS has delayed its comments, and that a  
date has not been given. One way to look at that is "this document  
should wait for the DOCSIS comments and then be updated", which is  
where we came out in August; the other is that it is sufficient for  
DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 services. If the latter is true, then we may  
simply want to add a note saying as much, publish this, and plan on a  
revision when DOCSIS emits its update. I have not heard that the  
latter is false.

On Nov 6, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt has been under  
> development for a while and has already been Last Called. It is too  
> late to add new material like this to it.  I'd suggest that you  
> write a separate document (maybe re-using the document layout) on  
> 802.16 and we'll push that forward separately.

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already  
tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz )

status of bb-deployment [Re: IEEE 802.16 access technology + IPv6 deployment

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
> This is actually something we probably want to discuss breifly tomorrow. I'm 
> told that DOCSIS has delayed its comments, and that a date has not been 
> given. One way to look at that is "this document should wait for the DOCSIS 
> comments and then be updated", which is where we came out in August; the 
> other is that it is sufficient for DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 services. If the 
> latter is true, then we may simply want to add a note saying as much, publish 
> this, and plan on a revision when DOCSIS emits its update. I have not heard 
> that the latter is false.

Back in August 2005, there was an offlist agreement (with chairs, 
authors, Alain, and Tony) as follows:

"1) Let them (Alain & Tony) to provide all the required inputs maximum 
until middle of October, so they have actually more time that they 
asked for.

2) With inputs or without them, the document will be ready from our 
side, and they will not object if they didn't provided the inputs (for 
example new architecture still not agreed, etc.). So by the cut-off 
date before the next IETF, will be moved forward to the next step.

3) If no inputs are available or a more complete thing is needed for 
DOCSIS 3.0, then a new document can be made specifically for that 
architecture."

It is no surprise that DOCSIS 3.0 might be delayed; that was expected 
already before the last IETF.  Unless there is opposition to this from 
other members of the WG, we should IMHO move forward.  We can't wait 
forever for input to come especially because we already agreed not to 

Re: status of bb-deployment [Re: IEEE 802.16 access technology + IPv6 deployment

One more issue as part of this agreement was to further clarify in the
document that it was preferring native IPv6 support. So the cable part of
this document is only relevant to the case that you can't upgrade your cable
equipment to support IPv6 natively.

This has been done in the latest review, and this means that any new release
of DOCSIS or any other way to offer native IPv6 support doesn't require any
change to the current document status.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Pekka Savola <pekkas@...>
> Responder a: <owner-v6ops@...>
> Fecha: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 05:21:40 +0200 (EET)
> Para: Fred Baker <fred@...>
> CC: "v6ops@..." <v6ops@...>
> Asunto: status of bb-deployment [Re: IEEE 802.16 access technology + IPv6
> deployment
> 
> "1) Let them (Alain & Tony) to provide all the required inputs maximum
> until middle of October, so they have actually more time that they
> asked for.
> 
> 2) With inputs or without them, the document will be ready from our
> side, and they will not object if they didn't provided the inputs (for
> example new architecture still not agreed, etc.). So by the cut-off
> date before the next IETF, will be moved forward to the next step.
> 
> 3) If no inputs are available or a more complete thing is needed for